In the long history of evolution it has not been necessary for man to understand multi-loop nonlinear feedback systems until very recent historical times. Evolutionary processes have not given us the mental skill needed to properly interpret the dynamic behavior of the systems of which we have now become a part.

J. W. Forrester, 1971

Monday, May 26, 2014

A
critical topic for us, our children, their children and so forth for
generations.

US carbon emissions in the energy sector have dropped since
2007 and will remain under the 2007 peak for the next few decades if
projections on natural gas hold and exports fail to materialize.
Historically cheap natural gas, enabled by hydro fracture drilling
technology has granted a temporary reprieve through the economic
destruction of the US coal generation industry.

The politicizing of the
carbon management debate by monied interests has prevented thoughtful
debate over optimal economic approaches to manage carbon such as tax and
dividend with tariffs on trade. Instead, in a surprising SCOTUS decision, the Clean Air Act will be used to manage carbon through
emission cap regulation. The problem is that it's a rather blunt
instrument. With any luck, the new regulation proposed by the
Administration will engage shortly. New coal plants will be constrained
to operate with emissions comparable to small natural gas turbine
plants. This implies that to build a new coal plant, you'll have to put
~40% effective carbon capture and sequestration on the plant or you
can't get a license.

Declining power generation from coal, January 2007 to January 2012 (EIA)

There's really no more thermal efficiency that can
be pulled out of new super-critical coal plants except by going to
co-generation. Usually, the capital risk economics don't work out on
that. The short answer is that this will likely block most new coal
generation. Meanwhile, old coal plants are struggling to meet new
emission limits on mercury and the cost of upgrades is not competitive
against decommissioning and building a combined cycle natural gas plant.
Old plants are retiring at a steady clip and new plants will be
blocked. If this continues, in a couple decades, the coal era will end
in the US. You can imagine the angst in the coal States.

Unfortunately,
this won't solve our most serious threat. It won't even touch it.
Non-OECD carbon emissions have doubled since 2005 and global emissions
have gone up 50% in the same decade! Global emissions are set to rise
another 40 to 50% by 2025 while OECD emissions remain essentially flat
since 2007 (the US among them).

If we can't drastically bend down the
curve in the developing world, it's game over. They're now producing
twice the carbon of the developed world and there's nothing suggesting
that their explosion in emissions will retrench. The real question is
how to get the developing world's house in order.

Meanwhile, 'Mericans
scrabble with each other about how to go to lower numbers domestically,
but the globe's pants are being pulled down in the developing world. The
only solution is to quickly get serious, put our own house in order and
launch a climate change "Marshall Plan." We have to go all in against
coal. Otherwise it's the future until the climate is truly toast. But
what does that mean?

Renewables? Yes! Nuclear? Yes and lots of it!
Natural gas? Yes! But to execute a Marshall Plan we need to disconnect
the advantage of cheap coal in the developing world. In the first
instance that means carbon tariffs on trade (perhaps the most important
mechanism of all since we're the dumping ground of cheap products based
on coal electricity). It also means getting our natural gas glut into
the international market to get the price of electricity up high enough
to convert the infrastructure.

Hopefully President Obama's big push on new LNG
terminals will move forward quickly because of the Ukraine geopolitics.
Monied interests, fat and lazy sucking down cheap US natural gas, and a
few odd confused environmentalists lacking a global perspective, have
battled the Administration all the way. We need low carbon technology.
All of it at massive scale right away.___________________________________Jon Phillips, PhD, is a Senior Technology Expert at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria, and is the Director of the Sustainable Nuclear Power Initiative at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, in Richland, Washington. The opinions expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the IAEA or PNNL.

Tri-City Herald "In-focus"

Many people respond to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
National Climate Assessment warnings of dire consequences from
human-caused global warming with either despair or dismissal.
Perhaps they assume that replacing fossil fuel, as the world’s primary
energy source will be economically, technically or politically
impractical. While such assumptions had some validity a decade or two
ago, recent developments in low-carbon energy sources have expanded the
world’s energy options.
This change is highlighted in the most recent IPCC report, with its
focus on mitigating climate change. In that report, the IPCC concludes
that “many renewable energy technologies have demonstrated substantial
performance improvements and cost reductions, and a growing number of
renewable energy technologies have achieved a level of maturity to
enable deployment at significant scale ... renewable energy accounted
for over half of the new electricity-generating capacity added globally
in 2012.” Similar optimism from The Solutions Project, a renewable energy
nonprofit, outlines how the energy infrastructure of each state in the
U.S. could be completely transformed to renewable energy by 2050.

Nevertheless, to avoid catastrophic climate change, we need to quickly
transition to low-carbon energy. Further delay narrows our options and
significantly boosts the eventual economic and social costs of
mitigation.
How to begin? Economists across the political spectrum agree that
putting a price on fossil-carbon emissions is the best first step.

The most promising proposals involve a revenue-neutral fee that is
collected at the mine, well-head, or port-of-entry, and then returned
to households as dividends. For example, the Citizens’ Climate Lobby
proposed that revenue collected be returned in a uniform monthly
dividend payment. Initially, the fee would be a modest $15 per ton of
carbon. The fee would increase annually by a fixed amount ($10 per ton)
until the necessary drop in CO2 emissions is observed.

Another revenue-neutral proposal returns the carbon fee collected by
reducing taxes. Recent studies for the states of California and
Washington show that this approach stimulates slightly more economic
growth overall than the fee and dividend approach, while still giving
the poorest families reasonable protection.
The gradual increase in the fee gives businesses the opportunity to
adjust their business models and stimulates investment in energy
efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy and emissions mitigating
technology, such as carbon capture and sequestration. At the border,
carbon-fee-equivalent tariffs and rebates ensure U.S. goods remain
competitive at home and abroad.

Initially, the dividend would be about $650 per household per year, and
grow to as much as $8,700 a year after 23 years. As with businesses,
this gradual increase allows families to pay for increased food and fuel
costs, home insulation, alternative energy sources (such as solar
panels), or a highly fuel-efficient or entirely electric vehicle, for
example.

The home construction and energy retrofit industries will lead
the way in new job creation and economic growth.
Regardless of which approach is adopted, our CO2 emissions will drop. In
so doing, we will have shifted to a path that reduces the risks
outlined in the IPCC and NCA reports and avoids the worst effects of
climate change, while stimulating economic growth and innovation.

Our congressman, U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, could propose legislation to
accomplish this before he leaves office. So long as we act soon, there
is no need for despair or dismissal.

Jim Amonette is a geochemist working on climate-change mitigation
technologies. Steve Ghan is a highly published climate scientist and
contributing author to three different IPCC reports. Both volunteer with
Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Global warming, due to our burning of fossil fuel, is causing the Greenland ice sheet to shed massive amounts of ice. In effect, Greenland is melting. As it does so, the white ice that reflected sunlight is being replaced by blue water that absorbs it, thus accelerating warming and further melting. This is what's called "positive feedback," and it's one of the most alarming aspects of global warming.

Northeast Greenland ice was considered stable until 2003, when summer temperatures spiked. Within a few years, the main outlet glacier draining the region -- Zachariae Isstrom -- retreated about 20 kilometers, and regional ice mass loss jumped from zero to roughly 10 metric gigatons a year. Today, ice mass loss from northeast Greenland into the Fram Strait abutting the Arctic Ocean is now closer to 15 to 20 metric gigatons a year and is still increasing.

A cubic meter of water weighs one metric ton (2,200 lbs). "Giga" is the prefix for billion.

We also learned recently that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is collapsing and its disintegration is unstoppable. Combined with what we've discovered about the Greenland Ice Sheet, the estimates of sea level rise in the latest (5th) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report -- between one and three feet this century -- appear extremely conservative.

If we don't reduce CO2 emissions immediately to near zero -- that's right, ZERO -- sea level rise between now and say 2200 could result in this (visualizations byNickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central).

AT&T Park, San Francisco

or this

Back Bay, Boston

or this

Jefferson Memorial

So, how are we addressing the devastating impact of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) on the Greenland Ice Sheet? The government of Greenland has opened up oil exploration in the Greenland Sea, and already awarded leases to a conglomeration of companies from around the world. When questioned about the decision by environmental organizations concerned with AGW, Greenland officials, who are already planning on how to dole out the proceeds from the leases, stated, "Greenland is not a museum."

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee recently signed an executive order creating a task force to design a “carbon emission limits and market mechanisms program” that establishes a cap on emissions, and includes “measures to help offset any cost impacts to consumers and workers, protect low-income households and assist energy intensive, trade-exposed businesses in their transition from carbon-based fuels.” Inslee’s “emissions limits and markets” program is, like a rose by any other name, a cap and trade program.

The Western Climate Initiative, of which Washington is a member, has established a regional target for reducing heat-trapping emissions of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. WCI’s main focus is developing a regional cap-and-trade program, so Inslee’s executive order is congruent with this goal and focus. Inslee is doing all he can at the state level. Unfortunately, cap and trade won’t do enough to reduce emissions. It’s a little like dusting your house with a feather duster. It just moves the dust from one place to another.

The best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to price carbon-based products, like coal, such that the price reflects the damage those products cause to the environment and, in turn, our quality of life (the so-called "Social Cost of Carbon"). To do this we must put a surcharge, or fee on carbon to be assessed at its source. This fee must be imposed at the national level in order to avoid a patchwork of policies that confuses markets and pits one state against another.

The fee on carbon would start low and increase annually in a predictable manner until emissions goals were reached. Now, there’s no getting around semantics on this —conservatives will call the fee a “tax” and will oppose it on principle, shouting slogans about, “tax and spend liberals!” But here’s the kicker; 100 percent of revenues collected from the carbon fee world be returned to households as a monthly dividend. This is what’s termed a “revenue-neutral carbon tax,” or in economic terms, a Pigouvian Tax, and it is considered by most economists to be the most effective way of reducing emissions, while minimizing the impact on the economy.

Under cap and trade, bankers and market traders get rich, and administrators go nuts. A carbon fee and dividend system is far more effective in reducing emissions, and it is immensely simpler to administer. And because the fee (and in turn, the price of fossil fuel) goes up predictably over time, it sends a clear price signal to industry. That predictability allows intelligent investments in low/no emissions technologies. Carbon fee and dividend proponents, such as the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, also propose placing a border adjustment levy on all imports from countries that do not price carbon similarly, leveling the playing field for U.S. companies.

For consumers, the rising cost of fossil fuels increases the demand for low/no emissions products, making them even less expensive as they reach mass production. Research and development of emissions mitigation technologies, and production of clean energy alternatives also creates jobs, and drives our nation’s economy into a clean energy future — a future in which we have stabilized our climate and ensured a livable planet for our children, and their children after them.

Existing cap-and-trade programs provide important lessons about the
need for robust design features. A brief review of real-world experience
will illustrate two of these lessons. First, a cap must be tight enough
to achieve significant cuts in emissions. Second, the method regulators
select for distributing emission allowances to firms is critical, and
auctioning is gaining favor as the preferred approach.

Cap and Trade in Practice. The
European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the first
cap-and-trade program for reducing heat-trapping emissions, and is
designed to help European nations meet their commitments to the Kyoto
Protocol. This program includes 27 countries and all large industrial
facilities, including those that generate electricity, refine petroleum,
and produce iron, steel, cement, glass, and paper.

The first phase of the EU ETS—from 2005 to 2007—drew criticism for
not achieving substantial cuts in emissions, and for giving firms
windfall profits by distributing carbon allowances for free. These
criticisms are valid. However, the EU viewed Phase 1 as a trial learning
period. The extent to which Phase 2—which runs from 2008 to 2012—helps
Europe fulfill its Kyoto commitments will be a better test of the
program.

Phase 1 allowed countries to auction up to only 5 percent of
allowances—and only Denmark chose to auction that amount. The result was
billions of dollars in windfall profits for electricity producers.
Phase 2 allows slightly more auctioning, which is expected to occur.

The rules for Phase 3—which extends from 2012 to 2020—were published
in December 2008, and unfortunately they are not as ambitious as
expected, given the EU’s stated commitment to tackling global warming.
This phase targets a 20 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels
by 2020; climate experts had hoped for 30 percent. Even this target is
considerably watered down because of the large amount of offsets allowed
from outside the capped region. Auctioning of allowances is still not
likely to play a major role. This experience reinforces the fact that
the United States would be much more likely to win stronger commitments
from the EU and elsewhere if it fulfilled its responsibility to lead on
climate policy.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
is a cap-and-trade program that covers a single sector—electricity
generation—in 10 northeastern and mid-Atlantic states. The program aims
to achieve a 10 percent reduction in emissions from power plants by
2018.

The program’s most notable aspect is that states unanimously chose
auctioning to distribute the vast majority of emission allowances. Six
of the ten states will auction nearly 100 percent of their allowances.
The auctions of the other four states include fairly small portions of
fixed-price sales or direct allocations.

The program's initial
three-year compliance period begins in 2009, but the first multistate
auctions occurred on September 25 and December 17, 2008. The first
auction, which included allowances from only six states, raised $38.5
million, while the second raised $106.5 million. States and electric
utilities will invest the vast majority of those funds in energy
efficiency and renewable technologies, with an emphasis on reducing
demand for fossil fuel–based electricity and saving consumers money.
The RGGI auction includes a reserve price, to ensure that CO2
emissions will always carry a minimum cost, and that the auctions will
yield a minimum amount of revenue for these important programs. Some
analysts fear that the states may have set the cap too high, because
emissions have not grown at the rate expected when the cap was set in
2005. However, there is a possibility that the states could revisit the
cap.

Cap and Trade on the Horizon

The Western Climate Initiative (WCI)—which
includes seven western states and four Canadian provinces—has
established a regional target for reducing heat-trapping emissions of 15
percent below 2005 levels by 2020. WCI’s main focus is developing a
regional cap-and-trade program. The WCI also requires participants to
implement California’s Clean Car Standard, and recommends other policies
and best practices that states and provinces can adopt to achieve
regional goals for cutting emissions.

The first phase of WCI development culminated on September 23, 2008,
with the release of its Design Recommendations. These sketch out a very
broad cap-and-trade program that would cover 85–90 percent of all
heat-trapping emissions from participating states and provinces. The
only parts of the economy that would remain uncapped are agriculture,
forestry, and waste management. However, some sectors, such as
transportation fuels, would be brought in at the start of the second
compliance period, in 2015.

California is the largest single entity in the WCI, and it has the
most detailed action plan of any state in the nation. In 2006 the
legislature passed, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed, a law to reduce
emissions economy-wide. The California Air Resources Board has created a
blueprint for achieving the required reductions. The plan includes a
strong set of sector-specific policies forecast to provide about 80
percent of the needed reductions, as well as a broad cap-and-trade
program linking to the WCI. The California and WCI cap-and-trade
programs are scheduled to go into effect in 2012.

Another nascent regional effort is occurring in the Midwest.
On November 15, 2007, the governors of Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, as well as the premier of the
Canadian province of Manitoba, signed the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Accord. Participants agreed to establish regional targets
for reducing global warming emissions, including a long-term target of
60–80 percent below today’s levels, and to develop a multisector
cap-and-trade system to help meet the targets.

Participants will also establish a system for tracking global warming
emissions, and implement other policies to help reduce them. The
governors of Indiana, Ohio, and South Dakota joined the agreement as
observers. The regional accord for reducing such emissions is the first
in the Midwest.

The governors and premier assembled an Advisory Group of more than 40
stakeholders to advise them, and their final recommendations are due in
May 2009. As now conceived, the cap would take effect January 1, 2012.

Follow by Email

So long and thanks for all the fish

So long and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this
We tried to warn you all but oh dear?

You may not share our intellect
Which might explain your disrespect
For all the natural wonders that
grow around you

So long, so long and thanks
for all the fish

The world's about to be destroyed
There's no point getting all annoyed
Lie back and let the planet dissolve

Despite those nets of tuna fleets
We thought that most of you were sweet

So long, so long, so long and thanks for all the fish

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish (1984, ISBN 0-345-39183-7) is the fourth book of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy tetralogy written by Douglas Adams. Its title is the message left by the dolphins when they departed Planet Earth just before it was demolished to make way for a hyperspatial express route.

Blog Author

Richard Badalamente earned his BS in Aeronautical Engineering from the University of Southern California and MS–Human Factors and PhD-Behavioral Science from Texas Tech. He is an author at http://tinyurl.com/pakn8el